FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHNSON BROTHERS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Claim for (a) Severance package; (b) Cover; (c) Aspects of remuneration package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns drivers (13) in the Transport Section of the Company. It is a sales, marketing and logistics company. Johnson Brothers Limited represents multinational manufacturers of fast moving consumer goods, in the Irish market.
The Company also provides a logistics service. This ensures that all products are sourced from the manufacturer in the most efficient way. The Company distributes products to over 5000 customers country wide. These customers include TESCO Ireland and Dunnes Stores.
The Company and the Union have been in negotiation concerning the process of restructuring the Transport Section of the business. It is accepted that changes are required if the Company is to remain competitive in the light of TESCO coming into the Irish market.
The following is the current position of the parties in relation to the proposed restructuring:-
(a)Severance Package
The Union is seeking a severance package for three drivers aged between 55 and 65 years of age. It claims that the employees concerned have indicated a preference to leave the Company on an agreed package as they will not be able to meet the new requirements of the job.
The Company has rejected the proposal of a severance package and refutes the Union's claim that the drivers concerned would not be able to adapt to the new structure. It claims that no redundancies exists.
(b)Hours of Work
The Company is seeking a commitment that drivers will cover the hours of 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. should the need arise. It argued that customer requirements dictate that deliveries may need to be made in the evenings. The Union rejected this proposal and argued that the span of hours was too wide and that it was akin to a shift system.
(c)Pay Structure
The Company is proposing a consolidated rate of £12 per hour instead of the present low basic rate which is topped up by various premia. In addition, it is proposing a multi-skilling allowance of £1,560. It would mean that drivers would have to work a 48 hour week to preserve their earnings. The Company alleges that the drivers currently work a 50 hour week.
The Union rejected this proposal and claims that while the drivers are paid for 50 hours they actually work a lot less hours than that.
(d)Expenses
The new requirement will mean more Dublin runs and less country runs for the drivers. This will reduce the amount of expenses available to drivers each week. The Company argues that it will pay expenses in line with regulations as set out by the Revenue Commissioners, i.e., £6.75 per day in Dublin.
The Union argued that £8.46 per day was allowable. The Company claims that this figure was based on public service rates and would not be paid by the Company.
(e)Clothing Allowance
A clothing allowance of £300 is paid each year to the drivers. The Company will provide uniforms and personal protective equipment from now on. The Union is seeking to retain the existing situation. It suggests that if it were to agree to the Company's proposal, a buy-out of the allowance would be required.
(f)Transport Vehicles
The Company will require that all transport vehicles be stored at the depot when not in use. This is partly due to business requirements and partly because of legislation prohibiting parking such vehicles in urban areas.
The Union claims that this proposal has an impact on the drivers as some of them use the vehicles for getting to and from work.
(g)Tracker System
The Company is proposing to put a communication/tracker system on board the vehicles to communicate information when there are problems, delays or emergencies and for security reasons.
The Union will agree this system provided it is not used for disciplinary purposes. The Company stated that it could not ignore serious breaches of discipline.
(h)Sick Pay Scheme
The Company propose that sick pay will be based on the same basis that exists in the warehouse . The drivers basic rate of pay is £165 and sick pay for the drivers is based on this amount.
The Union is seeking that sick pay be based on average earnings. The Company rejected this proposal because of the costs involved.
As no agreement was possible between the parties at local level, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 10th of March, 1998, 30th of March, 1998, 20th of April, 1998, 30th of June, 1998, 13th of August, 1998 and the 11th of September, 1998 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court investigated the dispute on the 6th of October, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a severance package for three drivers who are aged between 55 and 60 years of age. It claims that the drivers will be unable to cope with the new requirements of the job.
2. The Company is proposing a major restructuring of the Transport Section of the business. The workers concerned should be adequately compensated.
3. The Company secured a major contract to distribute all the products of a client company. This should enable the Company to improve the restructuring package on offer to the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a very competitive market. It needs the proposed restructuring in order to survive.
2. There will be no redundancies as a result of the restructuring programme.
3. The proposed restructuring is customer driven. The Company must provide quality service to its customers, at a competitive price, or it will lose market share.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the agreement between the parties (as set out in the IRO's letter of the 20th of April, 1998) was that negotiations should be held in the context of protecting the then existing earning potential of the drivers. The object of these negotiations was to facilitate the competitiveness of the Company.
The Court cannot accept that the contract which the Company secured in the interim has offset or diminished its requirement for improved competitiveness. Rather, it would appear to the Court, there is a stronger need for improved efficiency and competitiveness so as to successfully fulfil and retain that contract and thus to maintain employment.
The Court noted that the proposals put forward by the employer meets the agreed requirement to protect the existing earning potential of drivers. In that regard, there is no basis, in normal industrial relations terms for seeking to enhance earnings in consequence of the elimination of downtime.
The Court recommends that the proposals as put forward be accepted subject to the following adjustments:-
In the case of the three drivers referred to by the Union, the parties
should, following the implementation of the overall proposals, hold
further discussions aimed at reaching an acceptable accommodation
to deal with their claimed inability to adjust to the new arrangements.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement on this matter it may be
referred back to the Court as an issue.
The parties should jointly monitor the operation of the new working
arrangements and should carry out a full review after they have been in
operation for twelve months. In particular the operation of the new
rostering provision should be reviewed having regard to rostering
arrangements in similar employments.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th October, 1998______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.